James Damore Suing Google for "Reverse Discrimination"

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT
 

evilthecat:

Firstly, "biological differences between men and women" is just about the most useless phrase it's possible to imagine. I mean, once we put aside the obvious point that "men" and "women" are not defined by being male or female bodied, respectively, male and female bodies are defined by "biological differences", so what you're effectively saying is that people who are biologically distinct are, in fact, biologically distinct. Wow, high class elite STEM wisdom here.

But no, back in the real world, noone disputes that there are biological differences between human beings which could, if you wished, form the basis on which to define categories called men and women (you know if you somehow forgot that trans people existed). What I think is deeply, deeply questionable is literally any of the other conclusions derived from this realisation, which you seem to assume can simply piggy back onto it without being subject to any scrutiny or intellectual rigour. That is kind of what defines pseudoscience. It's not that it goes against "the ideology", it's that it's vague and uncritical.

"Questionable"? What's so questionable about different biological functions leading to different optimal lifes strategies? You know, I noticed there's a "Gaming" forum on this site, I bet there are people there who play that "Overswitch" thing that could explain how you don't want to play every character the exact same way. It's a little like that.

That is, if you accept the highly controversial claim that people are part of the continuum of life and share its imperatives, rather than blank slates ex nihilo, ready for total self-creation.

evilthecat:

If you don't know what the term inclusive means, don't use it.

It appears the word has multiple meanings.

evilthecat:

Here's the text.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19407882.2017.1392323

There's the abstract. As it happens, I'm not currently a subscriber to this wonderful publication.

evilthecat:
The original source describes only one of these things as a "masculine norm" (and even then I'm reaching, the term is not used directly). Specifically, the "relatively low fear of failure". This sentence is the result of mashing together two sections of the source article with completely different aims. With the exception, again, of the low fear of failure, these are descriptions of the results of a separate set of interviews with faculty with the objective of determining what they considered to be an ideal student. The purpose of this section is to provide context for the findings of the interviews with students.

From the abstract: " Undergraduate participants reported challenges meeting some of the characteristics of successful math and physics students (e.g., taking risks, asking questions, putting school first) and preferred a collectivistic environment. These characteristics are evidence of a masculine STEM institution, which also creates a masculine ideal that women students are expected to meet and exacerbates their discomfort in the STEM environment."

So, not "masculine norms", just "characteristics" of a "masculine institution" that creates a "masculine ideal". To quote some poem guy, "... and that has made all the difference."

evilthecat:

The concept of the "unencumbered body" derives from Joan Acker, and is (of course) referenced as such in the original source article. Your news article does not mention this and uses it without attribution or explanation.

Encumbrance in this sense refers to the level of responsibility which a person has outside of their work life, in particular, domestic and family responsibilities. In essence, a good worker is one who can devote their entire physical existence to work. They can work until they are physically tired or drained, rather than having to worry about the additional physical demands of caring for others. It does not imply that bodies possess different tolerances, and even if you weren't familiar with the term a cursory investigation of the citations would have turned that up.

So... the domestic and family responsibilities that just somehow happen to these college students because they identify as women? As opposed to, say, choosing to prioritize "family" (which I'm led to believe does involve some strenuous biology for particular kind of people that we apparently have no way of classifying meaningfully) over an exclusive focus on their studies?

evilthecat:

See, what you've done is because two statements appeared close together in your news article, you've conflated a misleading sense of authorial intent by ad-hoc merging them together and then ascribing your own faulty reading to the original source. Again though, the two sections have distinct purpose and intent in the original source. You've also repeated the mistake the article made earlier by assuming that the source article was ever actually talking about what qualities denoted being "good", whether at science or simply at being a student, when in fact it merely mentioned some self-reported qualities which professors feel denote a good student.

I was making an unwarranted assumption by linking "capacity for abstract thought" and dedicated study with being good at the abstract thing being studied, rather than just seeming like a good student?

evilthecat:
The term "embody" does not appear in the original article, neither does the noun form of female (let alone in plural). In short, why are you quoting a news article when you're purporting to describe the article it's (supposedly) based on. What is this, the world's worst game of telephone?

Er, I think I was pretty explicit about quoting a news article, what with the link and all. I can't help it if scientific publication is a racket that subsists on institutional subscriptions I don't have the privilege to enjoy.

evilthecat:

Demonstrate this, and I will literally send you money.

As it is, you're defending an argument by.. criticizing another argument.. which you haven't read.

Like, you seem to think you're talented at this. Do better. Complete, accurate and critical thought is literally what we do in the humanities, it's the thing that separates us from.. well.. from James Damore.

Demonstrate that's what Damore meant? How, you have his number so I can call and ask? That's what I got from it, because I wasn't reading it like a freaking prosecutor of wrongthink.

Also, "complete, accurate and critical thought" sure wasn't what I ever did in the humanities. That's why I somehow ended up there for a while, because I wasn't good at that. That, and also it was raining outside.

evilthecat:

Hey, it beats questing to find a rationale to dislike women..

Whoa, and I thought I had heard it all.

Fischgopf:
So, I actually am without Sin,

Said every stone-throwing sinner ever. You don't automatically win an argument just because you declare someone else a bigot and yourself a saint.

RikuoAmero:

All I'm seeing from your posts and the ones that follow is a desire to make racially charged decisions in the hiring of employees. You think you have a completely justified reason but look at yourselves! You're imagining (or probably are in real life, for all I know) seeing a group of applicants and when it comes to you choosing which ones to hire, their race, skin colour, sexuality, gender play big parts in it. "Oooh, I want to hire that one 'cause he's black! Oh! That person over there who's trans!"

Where did I argue this?

Because I'm pretty sure I'm sayng you as a potential employee are going to be less valuable than someone else doing the job that has more experience and more insight. If you have a problem with that... I frankly don't care. One more ad hominem and pretending like I'm saying what you yourself probably don't believe I'm saying (otherwise why be so creative with your quotesof individual sentences?), I'm either going to chalk it up to irreconcilability with what I've actually written not fitting your preconceived notions or what you secretly wish I would write ...

Which is it?

See, whenever I went into a job interview I had a cover letter explaining my strengths with direct workplace and life experience in the field, and what my training was like. Why I felt I was the best candidate for the job, and sold myself through my confidence of making it seem to that interviewer/panel that I would be an asset to have.

I didn't just act like every failed applicant before me with the same qualifications, and thought that just by rocking up someplace I deserved a job somewhere.

Employers want to see your initiative, they want insight into how you think the job is/was like. They want to know you won't be a liability. They want to know how nice you'll play with all the other workers in your team. And they will not hire you on any of these individual grounds if they're not convinced.

Particularly if another applicant has a step up on you in terms of their experience and seems to have a more comprehensive understanding of working with others to achieve divergent and often convoluted objectives or corporate milestones. You're competing against an entire world of talent in today's corporate environment. Either you act like you're the right stuff, or you don't whine when you're terminated/fail to get the job. It is as simple as that.

I fail tosee why you find this so complex. There are no nations anymore, only markets. If you want to succeed, your workforce will make up people who exemplify an upbringing and understanding of those markets, understand the geographical and cultural barriers to entry into those markets. This is not some strange concept.

It ends up stopping corporations pulling an Enron in India, if only they had the right talent in the right place they'd realize that the Indian energy market was notoriously difficult to make profitable as a foreign firm becoming primary supplier of electricity into their grids and feeding specific clientele.

Enron had all the appropriate engineers and logistical knowledge of being an electricity solutions and wholesaler in the U.S. ... that didn't correlate into being a successful energy supplier in India precisely because it wasn't the U.S. In order to not create a billion dollar boondoggle, you're going to have a taskgroup made up of specialists to address the market barriers to the Indian subcontinent. And yeah, any employer is going to favour someone who grew up around energy solutions and generation in India over some guy who studied in the U.S. and hasn't that life experience of the barriers to entry into the Indian subcontinent. Precisely because no one wants to be another Enron.

How about you address the points I make, not make a petulantly whiny critique about as if I have some secret goal of playing a game of Russian Recruitment?

There are financial reasons why a megacorporation wants their workforce to begin emulating the diversity of people they have a direct market presence with. It increases the worldliness and integrated knowledge prerequisites to make them viable entities and to seize new project ideas and wider market consolidation. And no, a lot of these opportunities cannot simply be picked up with a textbook. They require intimate contact, a degree of trust and bilateral activity that might span continents, that creates new economic bridges to new potential acquisitions of market share that can be made worldwide.

You and a book will not fulfil the criterion necessary to do as such.

If you want to open a mine in Indonesia, you need to know what politicians to get friendly with. A mind to the changing political nature of the environment. Specialist knowledge like that will not be adequately covered by books. You need people shaking/greasing enough palms to make it happen.

Someone refusing to meet with you might be more pliable when speaking to someone else who knows how to get them talking. The difference that these people with these unique talents and experience can bring can make or break a company.

Why the fuck would I or anyone else entrust someone who knows about Indonesian markets through only books they read at university?

If you told an employer you've read a lot .... sorry darling, doesn't cut it compared to a photo of one applicant shaking hands with an Indonesian cabinet member and has a plethora of possible materials they can use to give them leverage over any potential political debate as to the company's controversial presence somewhere.

They're worth an employer's time and money, not you. I'll tell you what will happen, though...

They'll pay you a tenth of the paycheque they'll get as one of their assistants building a portfolio and dossier on the project and to seal something iron-clad to operate or invest there. And if you don't like those terms, they'll find someone equally qualified to draw up paperwork, projections, and otherwise assist with the project for what they're willing to pay them for.

Enjoy that slice of reality with that indignation energy drink you're quaffing down.

Seriously, you might want to look at the ingedients on that beverage because apparently it's affecting your capacity to read.

StatusNil:

"Questionable"? What's so questionable about different biological functions leading to different optimal lifes strategies?

Simple. What's questionable is the use of biological differences to build a just-so narrative to dismiss any and all occurrences of sexism. Providing evidence for the existence of those differences is only a necessary condition, for a sufficient condition you need to show that those biological differences are the only cause of the observed social differences, which no one has satisfactorily done yet.

So... the domestic and family responsibilities that just somehow happen to these college students because they identify as women? As opposed to, say, choosing to prioritize "family" (which I'm led to believe does involve some strenuous biology for particular kind of people that we apparently have no way of classifying meaningfully) over an exclusive focus on their studies?

We can dismiss this argument right away by pointing out that there exist a growing number of countries in which the social expectation is that men and women share equally in parenting duties. This would not happen if women's preferences were biologically determined.

RikuoAmero:
Is that the only way you honestly think one can study another nation or culture? Simply by going onto Wikipedia? Oh geez, I guess there's no such thing as oh I dunno...visiting that country? Talking to its inhabitants? Logging what one learns...

As a word of advice, you should really try reading past the first sentence of someone's post before writing a reply.

Perma ban that wrongthink.

StatusNil:

"Questionable"? What's so questionable about different biological functions leading to different optimal lifes strategies? You know, I noticed there's a "Gaming" forum on this site, I bet there are people there who play that "Overswitch" thing that could explain how you don't want to play every character the exact same way. It's a little like that.

Because it's wrong?

I'm pretty sure anyone's optimal life strategy, whatever the fuck that might be, doesn't involve sitting at a keyboard inputting code. Nor would the 'optimal life strategy' involve me doing what I really do, that is just simply make money off owning shares, whether as dividends on them or trading volume. It's optimal to me (because fuck real work) ... but then again it seems pretty optimal for anybody that simply has enough money to do that in the first place. Funnily enough, regardless of whether they are men or women.

For starters, any such argument is going to lead to the tautology of an essentialist debate while conveniently ignoring the built environment, and the fact that there has never been a prescriptive life strategy for people on this planet. I don't remember reading up about my ancient forebears either in the British Isles or the Philippines two thousand years ago making a living off investing on the marketplace.

I don't know, maybe they had a thriving capitalist marketplace in pre-Roman Albion?

Moreover, if we were as simple as either you or Damore claim, we wouldn't be sitting at keyboards being paid to input code and make grossly uninformed critique about 'the science of difference' despite not having a background in neuroscience.

If there is this supposed optimal life strategy, I've yet to see evidence of it that has survived the test of time .... you'd think that sort of claim would be self-evidential. I've got a feeling that whatever justifications you might throw at me, I'm probably going to have a problem with however.

(Edit)Seems weird that you feel so confident you can tell a person what their 'optimal life strategy' can be, or whether it's so simplistic as playing a videogame with set variables as to which to inform my performance. Maybe people play different factions in a videogame and use prescribed methods of playing because people like to win when the performance of doing so is so tropishly mired in things like frag counts?

.... all while ignoring that reality doesn't have frag counts ... reality doesn't have clear win states ... reality doesn't even have capture the flag ...

Whatever reality does inform me as to my performance, it's a penchant for reading My Little Pony comics, eating Weet-Bix, liking sewing and board games, and trying to figure out what exactly I can do on my off days when I'm not at uni. Which is pretty much tantamount to 'chaotic' because I can't even figure out what exactly that will look like a week from now.

How many points is that worth? Maybe I should hit the start button and figure out my moveset, first? What sort of gamepad should I get if I want to go high tier competitive life strategizing?

My friends and family as a kid used tell me things like; "You should try to aim to do what makes you happy..." and all sorts of cliche stuff like that.

I thought they were pretty spot on in general, but apparently we can boil down optimal performance through arbitrary value judgments made by people I wouldn't care to know in my day to day life while living in a society that is pre-destined to make whatever I'm good at evolve in complexity, change through simplicity, be valued in varying capacity, and inevitably made obsolete by circumstance (like me eventually dying). Subjective value statements by people pretending not to be subjective that I wouldn't ever feel like they should be an authority on my journey of finding self-authenticity and building myself through life experience.

Who knew?

StatusNil:
"Questionable"? What's so questionable about different biological functions leading to different optimal lifes strategies?

Because, like virtually all sociobiological claims you can't actually demonstrate it, all you can do is infer (i.e. guess) from observations, and those observations are often themselves nonsense because they don't hold up cross-culturally or historically.

StatusNil:
That is, if you accept the highly controversial claim that people are part of the continuum of life and share its imperatives, rather than blank slates ex nihilo, ready for total self-creation.

So, I don't think you fully understand some of these concepts.

I mean, the concept of the human mind as a blank slate comes to us via a claim by Locke that people are not born with inherent knowledge or understanding, because at the time there was a very strong alternative position (rationalism) which held that humans were literally born with an intuitive understanding of reality given to them by God.

Even Locke, however, was completely aware that people do not self-create everything about themselves. He lived at a time when, on one hand, explorers were travelling all over the world and discovering new people who believed and practiced all kind of things, and on the other hand back in Europe there was enormous social change happening and the beginning of what would later be termed the Enlightenment. Locke had to account for the fact that people might believe untrue or unreasonable things despite having the same senses and the same capacity to think, so he created a concept called "customary knowledge". Customary knowledge covers all the things which are taught to people by the society they are living in, as opposed to the things that they derived from reason or their own observations. In essence, Locke already had a prototypical theory of socialization.

It isn't necessary to believe that because people behave differently, they must be behaving differently because God literally whispered into their ear that they are male or female and should behave accordingly.

StatusNil:
There's the abstract. As it happens, I'm not currently a subscriber to this wonderful publication.

So you're saying you chose to use this example despite being unable to read it?

Why?

StatusNil:
So, not "masculine norms", just "characteristics" of a "masculine institution" that creates a "masculine ideal". To quote some poem guy, "... and that has made all the difference."

Again, why are you attempting to interpret a text you have not read?

Secondly, it's not really up to you whether it makes a difference. There is still a distinction between things being "masculine norms" and things being expected characteristics of a successful student which form the basis of a masculine ideal. I can tell there's a difference, because so much of your moralistic reaction to this article requires this separation (obvious within the article itself) between the qualities of a successful student and the varying impact of those qualities upon the participants to be erased or played down.

You can't really talk about academic writing without being accurate.

StatusNil:
So... the domestic and family responsibilities that just somehow happen to these college students because they identify as women? As opposed to, say, choosing to prioritize "family" (which I'm led to believe does involve some strenuous biology for particular kind of people that we apparently have no way of classifying meaningfully) over an exclusive focus on their studies?

What's your point?

Like, I'm a bit confused because you seem to think this is supposed to be some kind of gotcha, and yet I'm not experiencing any sense of being "got" so it just comes off a bit masturbatory.

Like, again, I know some people give birth. I know the vast majority of those people are women. You aren't really owning the libs with your radical truth bombs here. I mean, to return to the biggest point to be made here, we really don't need your evopsych nonsense to understand how reproduction works. The difference is, I know how reproduction works, whereas you're guessing that reproduction somehow shapes every aspect of how a person behaves to the point that it's a meaningful basis for rational discrimination. Do you see the difference between knowledge and guesswork?

The only remotely interesting thing about what you've said is your claim that prioritising family is a choice (I'm assuming that what you mean is that everything that is a "choice" is somehow unworthy of discussion because every choice must be free, in which case, would you rather be shot in the head or the kneecap?) In the real world, choices can be socially mediated, hence why I can believe that many Muslim women choose to wear veils without having to believe either that this is a perfectly free choice devoid of any societal influence or that Muslim women possess a special "veil gene" which other women mysteriously lack.

StatusNil:
I was making an unwarranted assumption by linking "capacity for abstract thought" and dedicated study with being good at the abstract thing being studied, rather than just seeming like a good student?

Yes.

You've got to do the work. You can't just claim things because you like the sound of them, and you certainly can't ascribe things to a source which they didn't say without showing how these are logical conclusions.

Again, academic texts are pretty much defined by accuracy. If they don't say something, you can't assume there's no reason for that. If a study mentions self-reported qualities of a good student, you can't assume that the decision not to present these as objectively good qualities in and of themselves is incidental, and if you want to make that claim yourself you need to do the work.

StatusNil:
Er, I think I was pretty explicit about quoting a news article, what with the link and all.

Right, but you weren't describing the news article. That's the problem.

StatusNil:
Demonstrate that's what Damore meant?

Demonstrate that he was right, or even that he has a point worth making. Demonstrate some merit to this whole idea which you seem to be deeply, deeply upset there are even alternatives to.

StatusNil:
Also, "complete, accurate and critical thought" sure wasn't what I ever did in the humanities.

Well, that's on you. These are the central virtues of our disciplines.

evilthecat:
The difference is, I know how reproduction works, whereas you're guessing that reproduction somehow shapes every aspect of how a person behaves to the point that it's a meaningful basis for rational discrimination.

And here we have the heart of the matter, amid all the sophistry. Let me be clear about this, I am the one arguing against discriminatory practices here, as was James Damore. Because that's what a "headcount freeze on non-diverse hires" (defined memorably as "white and Asian males") very fundamentally is. And also arguing against attributing a sex ("gender" is an increasingly meaningless term, given how some radicals are claiming there are "more genders than individuals living, as some have multiple genders") ratio different from the general population in a specific field to a monolithic, unprovable cause ("institutional misogyny"). One that assumes collective guilt in the people working in that field, no less, so that mistreating them becomes a matter of "justice".

Furthermore, it's certainly not my intent to establish some kind of all-encompassing rulebook regarding what's somehow "appropriate" for which sex, as I readily acknowledge there are a great number of exceptions to the general trends. What this is about is ending the goddamn scourging of "male-dominated" industries as Strongholds of Woman-Hating Oppression, via an improved understanding of the multiple factors that go into "skewing" the natural (?) 50/50 ratio of the sexes. This involves the recognition that procreative concerns are a biological imperative for biological beings (albeit felt at varying degrees of intensity by individuals), and that the investments made and behavioral propensities related to them vary according to sex and have overwhelmingly likely been evolutionarily selected for. Denying that because of a (frankly conspiratorial) social "theory" is just the latest guise of the Scopes Monkey Trial.

Now, you could argue that the whole standard Western organization of "work" is "problematic" (or whatever your word of choice for "bad" is), in that it leads to an unsatisfactory choice between focus on "work" or "family" that is especially pronounced for people whose procreative role includes pregnancy and giving birth (formerly generalized under the category of "women", with an understanding that it was #NotAllWomen, but a significant part of them). In which case you have your work cut out for you to come up with a better model, so best of luck with that. What needs to stop are the current, utterly misguided and damaging practices of all the "diversity initiatives" that parasitize such institutions as exist at the cost of both their effective functioning and the part of the workforce suffering the punishments for an evil that exists primarily in the self-justifying "theories" of career malcontents, pursued with fully cultish zeal. That's what James Damore was getting at, in his "nerdish", autistic way that people find so objectionable, and not any variety of "Hurr Durr, Teh Women'z is stubid!" as claimed by all the Mean Girls and the Wanna-Be Chads trying to impress them.

As for my "lack of understanding" of these matters, it's true that I'm not a scientist. However, it has not been wholly denied to me to observe humans in their natural habitat over the years, so I have in fact seen these fundamental forces in their gradual action. Like in a girl of 16 never wanting any of that "mommy crap" growing up into a woman in her thirties who looks at you like you're out of your mind when you ask if she's thinking about returning to her modestly glamorous (local TV) job and just says "But I love to be home with my babies!" It happens, and it's not "wrong" that it does, imposed on her by some Invisible Manspiracy.

StatusNil:
"gender" is an increasingly meaningless term, given how some radicals are claiming there are "more genders than individuals living, as some have multiple genders"

Why exactly would that make gender meaningless?

"Sex" doesn't have a single, universally agreed meaning either.

StatusNil:
One that assumes collective guilt in the people working in that field, no less, so that mistreating them becomes a matter of "justice".

Who has said this?

If the answer is "noone", then demonstrate it yourself.

StatusNil:
This involves the recognition that procreative concerns are a biological imperative for biological beings (albeit felt at varying degrees of intensity by individuals), and that the investments made and behavioral propensities related to them vary according to sex and have overwhelmingly likely been evolutionarily selected for.

This is what I want you to demonstrate.

Because right now, it's a guess, and a guess which, as far as I can see, has no actual evidence behind it beyond your personal incredulity that any alternative could be possible.

StatusNil:
In which case you have your work cut out for you to come up with a better model, so best of luck with that.

You know, I could find you anthropological examples of societies which never independently developed writing, yet in which men and women share childcaring responsibilities. I could even find you a few in which men take on the majority of child-caring responsibilities.

I mean, just over a century ago the concept of the family wage was still highly unusual, meaning in working class industrial communities both men and women worked (albeit often in different capacities) and shared childcare responsibilities by necessity.

Most societies have or have had some form of segregated sex/gender roles. Very, very few have this post industrial concept of a distinct public/domestic sphere as male and female space, respectively. Very, very few have barred women from productive labour (in many societies, women perform the vast majority of productive labour). A cursory examination of the historical or anthropological record already demonstrates that this timeless, essential truth you're trying to sell is neither timeless nor essential.

StatusNil:
That's what James Damore was getting at

Indeed, and to be honest most of it was incoherent, hence why I've only responded to the parts which can actually be meaningfully argued with. I don't really care about your perception of the character of various people, or your empty speculation about whether tech companies function better with or without a diverse workforce or whether you find social theory difficult or frustrating to read. I care about your underlying reasoning, and your reasoning is weak bordering on non-existent.

StatusNil:
Like in a girl of 16 never wanting any of that "mommy crap" growing up into a woman in her thirties who looks at you like you're out of your mind when you ask if she's thinking about returning to her modestly glamorous (local TV) job and just says "But I love to be home with my babies!"

If you can find no possible explanation for this beyond (conveniently) invisible, undetectable woman genes or biological processes which cannot be observed or evidenced, then I think that's a failure of your imagination.

As horrible as it may be, Locke was demonstrably right. We come into this world as screaming lumps of flesh devoid of any understanding of ourselves or the world around us. We know, because we've seen what happens if you deprive social animals of socialization. They don't become perfect little Flintstonian carer mummies and breadwinner daddies just like nature intended, untainted by feminist manipulation or decadent social theory, they become.. well..

"These monkey mothers that had never experienced love of any kind were devoid of love for their infants, a lack of feeling unfortunately shared by all too many human counterparts. Most of the monkey motherless mothers ignored their infants ... but other motherless mothers abused their babies by crushing the infants face to the floor, chewing off the infant's feet and fingers, and in one case by putting the infant's head in her mouth and crushing it like an eggshell. Not even in our most devious dreams could we have designed a surrogate as evil as these real monkey mothers."
- Harry Harlow

Love, even love for your children, is ultimately socially learned. The capacity for love is not inherent to a particular sex, because it's not inherent at all. If I can spare a moment for sentiment, I think what's saddest about your position is not that it limits women, but that it ultimately dehumanises men who could, if given the chance to learn, be perfectly capable of experiencing love or of bonding with their children.

I'm back!

RikuoAmero:

StrayArrow:
This is a vey easy win for Google, seriously.

Damore is a very clueless person and his firing from Google only contributed for him being even more clueless.
He's a guy who spent his entire life shelthered in a bubble of privilege and feels that even the tiniest problem in his life is the equivalent of being gay in the 50's or a jew on the holocaust.
And like your garden variety conservative he uses of a variety of excuses to conserve (lol) his precious staus quo. Trying to hire more womman and people of different ethinicities to your workplace? You're discriminating against white cis straight man and letting people not suited from the job enter in the tech world!

This disgust me in a visceral level.

Okay, I have a quick and should be easy challenge for you.
Let's say you run a company in the US and you have...let's say ten positions that need to be filled.
Given the population demographics of the US, let's say that ten of the twenty people who apply for your jobs are white cis straight men. The other ten of the twenty people who applied are a mix between pretty much every other demographic you can think of.

Since you promote hiring practices like in the quote above, I'd like for you to explain how the white cis straight men are NOT being discriminated against when you decide to push for more Latino's or more women or whatever.
This is a zero sum game. When one person gets a position, every other applicant loses. How is it NOT discrimination when you have guidelines, rules or (even worse) laws that state job positions must be held for applicants of a certain race, ethnicity, sex or gender?

Hiring the POC and womman in this case would be discrimination? When? Where? Why?
It's just discrimination when non cis white man are employed?
Because it's possible to conclude that from your wording here.

StatusNil:
What this is about is ending the goddamn scourging of "male-dominated" industries as Strongholds of Woman-Hating Oppression [...]

D'you think people might find it more difficult to take the argument seriously when you devolve into this silly hyperbole?

I find it quite odd that you often seem to be quoting somebody when you go into hyperbole-mode. "Strongholds of Woman-Hating Oppression", here, for instance. Yet... nobody else said that, and your language is easily the most extreme language in the thread.

It's just... so lazy. Like me wading in here and talking about "The destruction of women and minorities by the righteous men of valour" or some nonsense, pretending that that represents what you've been saying.

The impact is only to kill off any chance there might have been of mutual understanding, by lazily insulting my opponent. Why do it?

evilthecat:

Love, even love for your children, is ultimately socially learned. The capacity for love is not inherent to a particular sex, because it's not inherent at all. If I can spare a moment for sentiment, I think what's saddest about your position is not that it limits women, but that it ultimately dehumanises men who could, if given the chance to learn, be perfectly capable of experiencing love or of bonding with their children.

This is something that always drives me up the wall when these kinds of discussions happen. People who are defending men ironically end up doing so by stereotyping men in ways I find utterly offensive. I've been mocked on this website because I ended up having an emotional moment and crying in public. Men aren't supposed to feel no emotions it seems.

Gethsemani:

You really like the word bigot today. But guess what? This is a problem where someone is going to get burned, no matter what. You and Rikuo just want it to be the already excluded and marginalized minorities, whereas me and Addendum argue that it is better to force employers to hire minorities for a while, so that they can establish themselves. Yes, that means that some potentially awesome white men will get shafted and won't get their dream job, but really, that's something that women and minorities is already used to because hiring practices are stacked in favor of white men.

When employers consistently pass over minorities that's bigoted too. Our solution is arguably the less bigoted one, in that it will contain only a time-limited affirmative action instead of allowing bigoted practices to remain. Because as long as white men can get jobs simply because they are white and men, even when better qualified candidates that are minorities or women apply, that's even more bigoted then what we propose. So tone down the rhetoric a notch, you ain't exactly without sin in this discussion.

Not exactly what I'm arguing.

See, frankly, there's financial reasons why these megacorporation want to start expanding their workforce plurality of different people with different life experiences, different cultural backdrops, and thus different perspectives on the environmental forces that are intrinsically attached to perspective and social awareness. They're an end user services company, and having a greater market share is more important than any quibbling stupidity of the 'science of difference' that wouldn't pass a first year psych course.

In fact thew first thing they drill into you in any scientific discourse is to never, ever, couch your terms or perspective from essentialism as it begins to shoot unbias observation in the foot. There is a wealth and weight of numerous scientific studies into behaviour that invalidate Damore's claims.

The nature of diversity in the workforce is directly tied to the fact that the people with money is no longer white people as a default that collectively had either a social or cultural reason to see themselves as being the center of world trade and trade consciousness, and you can't simply get governments to help you colonise a part of the world so you can access their tin, copper, nickel, cocoa, whatever the fuck you're colonising a place over anymore.

Or at least, it's more difficult ...

And this is a particularly big thing in situations where you can't just dump soldiers or mercenaries someplace.

As poer above in my Enron example that basically signalled the slow (albeit hidden with careful mark-to-market accounting) collapse of the company. If you don't have a diversity in your thinktanks, you will not have the 'business solutions' to deal with an angered Dabhol minister that simply decides to cancel buying your energy after you build a billion dollar power plant in their backyard.

Nowadays you hire regional taskforces made up of local talent, and basically people you bribe with a big campaign donation, or simply just giving them a big salary for doing next to fuck all, and you call it 'business solutions management' and you hire specialist talent to get enough dirt/leverage on people to make sure everybody keeps the fuck in line.

Ala, Adani Corporation-Queensland state government talks ... Joh Bjelke-Petersen mining and land dev deals ... and so on and so and so on ...

The growing diversity of the workplace is a direct aspect of the increasingly liquid relationships industry has with global consumption and government.

As we learnt from the North Carolina Bathroom Bills, the biggest heavyweights of fighting that were corporations. And traditionally Republican siding corporations, at that. You had arms companies like Northrop Grumman signing petitions against then Governor McCrory. And the reason is fucking simple, corporations want the greatest access to the greatest number of assets they can capitalize on.

Trans people make great workers because many are just happy for stable work, and are statistically more likely to accept far lower paygrades if it just means they will have consistently paid labour. They won't make a fucking peep.

Ever wonder why Microsoft was considered for the longest time as the most 'LGBTQ friendly employer on Earth' for a decade?

People that will simply be happy for static work. People who are actively discriminated by law and cultural zeitgeist suddenly having to downgrade their expected rewards on labour!? Oh you don't ... FUCKING ... SAY?

The only reason why corporations didn't act on this 'diversity' platform sooner is because;

1: Trans people used to be overwhelmingly discriminated against in academia that simply getting a degree was a nightmare, now trans people are becoming more and more a public sight into academic disciplines for which these corporations can make use of. Given that increasing access to academia trans people are now experiencing (inspite of increased social and legalised discrimination), corporations are finding it beneficial to produce an environment that is conducive to gaining their labour.

2: Because Republicans consistently offered tax breaks at a higher volume than politicians that typically advocated from a position of social equality and ending legislative and lawful discriminaion against their own citizenry and constituents (also known as 'having a functional moral compass') would often argue for.

In the world where tax concessions is almost a sneeze in comparison to all your abiliies to simply hide wealth generation fror high ranking corporate officers and board members ... the allure of Republicans being able to channel; corporate support and Evangelical support is diminishing. So much so there's corporations that can wear that big faux social equality smile without having to worry about Republican counter-measures against their active programs of active recruitment of traditionally marginalized people.

Hint hint, it's because we're cheaper labour, and fuck anyone (particularly conservatives) that thinks that's somehow a moral failure on our part.

And this is, of course, not something unique to the U.S., it's just that they're catching up with a radically free market Western world everywhere else.

I find it funny that the conservatives that argued for that world are now complaining since it's slowly biting them in the arse. Naturally the qualities of the 'friendly-but-not-actually-friendly' corporate environment is more pronounced the closer it comesdown to direct end-user relations... Things like Youtube auto-flagging LGBTQ content for no reason other than merely just assuming such cointent is 'mature' is not the workplace or the company direction of the future... Google knows it, I know it, and everyone else secretly knows it, but they just don't like the answer.

Once again, the solution is not simple. It's bigger than governments. It's a worldwide economic system with multilayered parts.

I don't have an answer for it. I've seen enough of both government and the corporate world to get it, but I'm not even going to pretend to have an answer.

What I'm more than willing to go out on a limb about is to call out bullshit where I see it when people complain ot's somehow some 'Socjus feminazi conspiracy'.

No... it's *money*. Plain and fucking simple. These people are more than willing to take on trans software developer, arms inspectors, even soldiers (depending on where you are) ... you reckon that correlates into a legitimate shift in social power or living quality?

Effectively what's happening is trans people are being placed in an uncomfortable situation where ... what exactly do you expect us to do? Challenge a legal system that treats us like garbage, pays us less, but at least is slowly rectifying unemployment rates despite doing little to address total social mobility or living quality?

Or do we argue in favour of any broadstrokes "social reform" movement that will be likely co-opted by openly bigoted people screaming about freeze peach that will actively not give a shit if those trends in slowly reducing un(der)employment and un(der)rewarded paygrades and promotional opportunities for trans people are thrown out a window?

Regardless of left or right, historically in either the LGBTQ community gets it in the neck looking at both sides of the economic divide.

Hell ... we've even got the alt-right screaming about 'degeneracy' because we exist and apparently that's bad, all while they continue to pretend they are totally not Neo-Nazis? I mean, screaming 'degeneracy' totally has no historical warning shots in it there...

It's like asking how you'd like to be tortured. There is no good answer, and pretending like we have something to look forward to in either is inhumane. Knowing full well that due to economic determinism that next global depr/recession should be right around the corner, given they average 8-12 year cycles... Just what sort of world might await us after the outrage beyond that?

There's a reason why so many trans people see how this debate is unfurling across the Western world and feel a bit like this...

Whatever the answer you come up with, try looking a trans person in the eye and tell them they'll be fine.

Because sofar, what has been blatant profiteering on marginalized people's labourhas been successfully sold as if truly 'affirmative action' despite it almost always looking like a reduced cheque for equivalent labour ... and on the flipside of that you have traditionally privileged people no longer so likely to get that job at statistically twice the pay as that """affirmative action""" calling it a conspiracy that we're responsible for.

Where should we throw our hat, then?

Regardless of what we do, still the same killers, thieves and lawyers... and if the tides move fair enough away in either direction, all it will look like ismore trans people in the gutter or in the ground.Highlighting the fact that this is probably the best we can ever really have it ... underpaid, treated as second class citizenry, and as expendable human beings to merely facilitate a cog inthe wheel for that systemic discrimination .... why exactly shouldwe feel good about any potential prospect you might come up with?

There is a solid reason why I legitimately do not extend my political beliefs beyond what is good for trans people. Finding ways to improve our lot in life, because sure as shit the people that will criticise me for that approach will treat us as an afterthought and be guilty of pretending they wouldn't throw us under a bus at the first chance they get.

Usually parroting such things as; "Yeah, but you simply have to wait your turn ... you won't get there unless we get there" ... and whatever myopic, teeth-grinding lies and open bullshit I've been told by every other libertarian group that tries to create sweeping reform and pretends like I'm somehow bad for persistently asking where trans people fit into their machinations.

There is a specific reason why I consider myself an anarcho-syndicalist, we can't afford to trust central hierarchies in any hypothetical political system. And that has proven itself historically time and again.

There is a reason why I won't wear any rainbow flag on my apparel or when at protests or for writing discourse to politicians and other political representatives. I'll use queer symbols, because since the 80s it's been proven time and again that trans and queer people can't rely on anyone but their own, and generating their own political capital.

Let me tell you a personal story why I gave up a career in teaching to go into government work proper.

One day, my department head came to the side of my cubicle while I was preparing classroom printouts for one of my Yr. 10 classes. And he told me that I had a complaint from a parent after ity was heard through the grapevine that I decided to have a chat with a student that was bullied for being gender non-conforming and I told them it was okay, and how I was bullied too, and that I'll have some strong words with the bullies if I see it happening.

What else were they expecting me to say? I hadn't even met the kid in any real capacity until that day ...

A job for the counsellor, but apparently it became my job detail because they felt that by dint of simply being trans it should be shunted to me-- argh, you know what? ... let's not go into that specific pile of clusterfuck...

Now this parent had apparently claimed that this was proof of a 'LGBT agenda' ... so I can only assume it was the mother or father of a child I picked up on school grounds for bullying other kids during ground duty and decided to play the vilification card to stoke flames.

Now my words; "And I hope you told them to shove it up their arse..."

I was angry. Yeah, I always knew that you'd get parents pulling this bullshit but at the very least it was face to face most of the time at a PTM where I could look them dead in the eyes. Not through some backdoors bureaucratic garbage seeking to tarnish my reputation that way.

My professionalism is impeccable, I prided myself on it. Never being late. Never being unkempt. Went to every staff meeting. Not one transgression on file. I didn't turn down sports carnivals attendance. In essence, I never shirked my duties as I believe education and teaching is not merely the noblest of all occupations, but paramount to any beauty of humanity that can be seen in the world.

In the two years since I started working there I had better attendance than anyone of my peers. My record is fucking spotless, and you'd assume that your immediate superiors should communicate that to a parent making such ridiculous claims in no uncertain terms.

The school should have had my back, not entertained such fucking stupidity. In no uncertain terms, made it clear that my service was a valuable contribution to the community and to the children I taught. To do anything less would be to invite speculation of a teacher's reputation solely on the basis of bigotry.

And this was the reply I got; "Well you have to understand this is a hot button issue, what you are ... and we need to be diplomatic... I'm looking out for your interests in this."

That's the shit you have to deal with, 'affirmative action' or no.

You think all those people that continue pretending they're doing you a favour will be gone? You think the general bigotry of the public will be gone?

erttheking:

evilthecat:

Love, even love for your children, is ultimately socially learned. The capacity for love is not inherent to a particular sex, because it's not inherent at all. If I can spare a moment for sentiment, I think what's saddest about your position is not that it limits women, but that it ultimately dehumanises men who could, if given the chance to learn, be perfectly capable of experiencing love or of bonding with their children.

This is something that always drives me up the wall when these kinds of discussions happen. People who are defending men ironically end up doing so by stereotyping men in ways I find utterly offensive. I've been mocked on this website because I ended up having an emotional moment and crying in public. Men aren't supposed to feel no emotions it seems.

Don't forget, men are also not expected to show any non-macho affection towards another man, because to do otherwise is to be a "fag".

Note: women do have more problems overall with societal expectations. However, I find that by addressing those problems, many people like to pretend it's all roses for the men, who never have to deal with any problems ever. Unless they, you know, cry while running for President.

thebobmaster:

erttheking:

evilthecat:

Love, even love for your children, is ultimately socially learned. The capacity for love is not inherent to a particular sex, because it's not inherent at all. If I can spare a moment for sentiment, I think what's saddest about your position is not that it limits women, but that it ultimately dehumanises men who could, if given the chance to learn, be perfectly capable of experiencing love or of bonding with their children.

This is something that always drives me up the wall when these kinds of discussions happen. People who are defending men ironically end up doing so by stereotyping men in ways I find utterly offensive. I've been mocked on this website because I ended up having an emotional moment and crying in public. Men aren't supposed to feel no emotions it seems.

Don't forget, men are also not expected to show any non-macho affection towards another man, because to do otherwise is to be a "fag".

As long as you preface it with "no-homo" and slap their ass like a man afterwards, you gain a brief window where actions won't raise your "fag"-ness meter though.

StatusNil:
This involves the recognition that procreative concerns are a biological imperative for biological beings (albeit felt at varying degrees of intensity by individuals),

Humans don't work quite like the majority of other animals. Humans, and possibly some of the other higher primates, don't really have a reproductive instinct per se, rather we have a desire for sex and an instinctive repulsion of reproduction. The purpose of this from an evolutionary standpoint is to make mate selection more selective (since in humans, reproduction consumes huge amounts of resources and carries enormous risks), you won't reproduce until you encounter a mate with the optimal characteristics such that the sexual drive overpowers the instinctive desire to not reproduce.

We have a sex drive, not a reproductive drive.

And the practical evidence for this is in three parts. First, there is a huge amount of variability in desire to have children between cultures, and this would dash the biological argument on its own, but we can go further. Second, when reproductive freedom increases in a culture, the birthrate invariably falls rapidly. And lastly, there is generally a massive length of time (almost two decades) between when a person becomes sexually aware and when they have children (if they do). If there was an inherent reproductive drive, then none of this would be true.

That's what James Damore was getting at, in his "nerdish", autistic way that people find so objectionable, and not any variety of "Hurr Durr, Teh Women'z is stubid!" as claimed by all the Mean Girls and the Wanna-Be Chads trying to impress them.

Mother of God, you're serious.

I need you to explain this for me.

renegade7:

That's what James Damore was getting at, in his "nerdish", autistic way that people find so objectionable, and not any variety of "Hurr Durr, Teh Women'z is stubid!" as claimed by all the Mean Girls and the Wanna-Be Chads trying to impress them.

Mother of God, you're serious.

I need you to explain this for me.

The only time I've heard rhetoric like this "Mean Girls" and "Chad" stuff is browsing r/inceltears. All that's really missing is something about "beta orbiters" or "normies" which I'm guessing is what the "Wanna-Be" is referring to.

edit: This comment is not anywhere near the extreme of those found on that subreddit. I'm just saying for some anecdotal context that, personally, it's the only place I've seen those terms.

Avnger:
[

The only time I've heard rhetoric like this "Mean Girls" and "Chad" stuff is browsing r/inceltears. All that's really missing is something about "beta orbiters" or "normies" which I'm guessing is what the "Wanna-Be" is referring to.

edit: This comment is not anywhere near the extreme of those found on that subreddit. I'm just saying for some anecdotal context that, personally, it's the only place I've seen those terms.

Now I'm even more confused. Are feminist men like myself aggressive, sex-crazed alpha male Chads who are oppressing the nerds with our alphaness and taking all the women or are we effeminate beta male mangina cucks who are perpetually in the friend zone?

renegade7:

Avnger:
[

The only time I've heard rhetoric like this "Mean Girls" and "Chad" stuff is browsing r/inceltears. All that's really missing is something about "beta orbiters" or "normies" which I'm guessing is what the "Wanna-Be" is referring to.

edit: This comment is not anywhere near the extreme of those found on that subreddit. I'm just saying for some anecdotal context that, personally, it's the only place I've seen those terms.

Now I'm even more confused. Are feminist men like myself aggressive, sex-crazed alpha male Chads who are oppressing the nerds with our alphaness and taking all the women or are we effeminate beta male mangina cucks who are perpetually in the friend zone?

Both at the same time? Fuck if I know. It is a hell of a logic puzzle though (and by logic puzzle I mean a self-contradicting Gordian Knot)

renegade7:
Now I'm even more confused. Are feminist men like myself aggressive, sex-crazed alpha male Chads who are oppressing the nerds with our alphaness and taking all the women or are we effeminate beta male mangina cucks who are perpetually in the friend zone?

Yeah, I'm going for both for that one.

renegade7:

Now I'm even more confused. Are feminist men like myself aggressive, sex-crazed alpha male Chads who are oppressing the nerds with our alphaness and taking all the women or are we effeminate beta male mangina cucks who are perpetually in the friend zone?

Considering "alpha / beta / etc." personality types are borderline pseudoscience, none of it really matters.

And to the extent any of it is true, it still doesn't matter what personality type you are, because there are also a range of personality types amongst the available matches out there better suited to yours than others'. If you're having trouble, basically it's your social skills, not your personality type.

Agema:

Considering "alpha / beta / etc." personality types are borderline pseudoscience, none of it really matters.

And to the extent any of it is true, it still doesn't matter what personality type you are, because there are also a range of personality types amongst the available matches out there better suited to yours than others'. If you're having trouble, basically it's your social skills, not your personality type.

It's not even pseudoscience.

Pseudoscience has the assumption of being untestable, or shaky even upon testing. Like sociobiology, evopsych, etc. Like fabricating a reason through speculation to explain phenomena that exists, often divorced from empirical studies or even a historical gaze that would suggest other, actually testable theorem of the forces that shape the phenomena that exist.

A lot of this alpha/beta/whatever nonsense came from observing gregarious pack animals in captivity. Of which has been debunked by looking at pack animals in the wild.

There are obvious reasons why the former is more problematic than the latter, given the highly controlled, high regulated, highly routine nature of effectively living in a cage. It would be like making subjective arguments of humans in civil society, by comparing them to the most dehumanizing prisons in the world... and if you made all the inmates lower animals.

I do find it funny how these people that spew on about this nonsense have no problems about basing their rationale or moral metrics of behaviour and its validity on creatures without sapience. Maybe they're projecting so hard that they've come full circle and actually broadcasting an inner truth about themselves that they're unworthy of the common courtesy you'd otherwise provide to your fellow person?

Addendum_Forthcoming:

I do find it funny how these people that spew on about this nonsense have no problems about basing their rationale or moral metrics of behaviour and its validity on creatures without sapience. Maybe they're projecting so hard that they've come full circle and actually broadcasting an inner truth about themselves that they're unworthy of the common courtesy you'd otherwise provide to your fellow person?

I think pseudoscience is a good term, because the people who propagate it via internet debates and bulletin boards are clearly all operating under the assumption that it is scientific.

Hear enough people happily recite the theory, it superficially seems to make sense. You can imagine that way back when, someone brought it up and the people reading assumed that person knew what he or she was talking about. Then passed on and around for years, developed, expanded in a little bubble, always assumed to be right because everyone talked about it and no-one bothered to check what it was every based on or even if it was really based on anything at all.

Bit like "trigger warnings", I guess.

Agema:

I think pseudoscience is a good term, because the people who propagate it via internet debates and bulletin boards are clearly all operating under the assumption that it is scientific.

Hear enough people happily recite the theory, it superficially seems to make sense. You can imagine that way back when, someone brought it up and the people reading assumed that person knew what he or she was talking about. Then passed on and around for years, developed, expanded in a little bubble, always assumed to be right because everyone talked about it and no-one bothered to check what it was every based on or even if it was really based on anything at all.

Bit like "trigger warnings", I guess.

I'd buy that if it wasn't for the fact that so many proponents of the past hadn't personally said; "We were wrong."

I'd call it 'narcissistic personality disorder', myself.

A lot of people when realizing they're an arsehole at least try to rein in their more destructive social tendencies for the sake of people they didn't know they were hurting or making undue demands of through their emotional or social sabotage. You take some of the most reticent, problematic anger-related case files... where by their emotional state is actively reducing their life expectancy in terms of decades ... and often through counselling and psychotherapy will turn around and try to be better people at heart...

Excusing your character flaws is no less as wrong as that court mandated anger management case refusing to change their ways.

I've met 'pseudoscientists' in terms of people who research on the side various psychological phenomenon. Dreamers who are often quite intelligent, existing on the fringe of purely speculative theory and more often than not all they have to their pet projects is self-experimentation and direct observation of participants usually no larger than a handful of people they've talked to. To give an example back when I first went through uni I ran into someone who went into psych precisely because he was interested in less concrete ideas of cognition and developmental psychology. The 'undiscovered country' side of dealing with something as complex as the human creature...

That's not a fault for dreamers thinking big, often scandalous ideas...

At best and worst some are eccentrics. Some are dreamers. Some are believers in something bigger than themselves, at least as we currently are, that they seek to consume near-mysticism and travel to find some inkling of whatever it is they're looking for. That's not a moral failure or hazard. If anything the world would be boring without them, and we should all secretly so wish to be so liberal or free of skepticism with how we see the world and humanity's relationship to the universe.

Certainly better than organized religion... the truest problems happen when such things go on to be combined with obvious predatory exploits (capitalizing on its faith) or the justification of ignorance...

But that is actually the minority of pseudoscientists I have met (which is not to say may be accurate, but just outlining where I'm coming from)... they take on board existing theory and empirical testing. Most of them keep up to date with their field of inquiry. They are willing to revise their hypotheticals, or perhaps bring valid critique to existing consensus from their perspective...

StrayArrow:
I'm back!

RikuoAmero:

StrayArrow:
This is a vey easy win for Google, seriously.

Damore is a very clueless person and his firing from Google only contributed for him being even more clueless.
He's a guy who spent his entire life shelthered in a bubble of privilege and feels that even the tiniest problem in his life is the equivalent of being gay in the 50's or a jew on the holocaust.
And like your garden variety conservative he uses of a variety of excuses to conserve (lol) his precious staus quo. Trying to hire more womman and people of different ethinicities to your workplace? You're discriminating against white cis straight man and letting people not suited from the job enter in the tech world!

This disgust me in a visceral level.

Okay, I have a quick and should be easy challenge for you.
Let's say you run a company in the US and you have...let's say ten positions that need to be filled.
Given the population demographics of the US, let's say that ten of the twenty people who apply for your jobs are white cis straight men. The other ten of the twenty people who applied are a mix between pretty much every other demographic you can think of.

Since you promote hiring practices like in the quote above, I'd like for you to explain how the white cis straight men are NOT being discriminated against when you decide to push for more Latino's or more women or whatever.
This is a zero sum game. When one person gets a position, every other applicant loses. How is it NOT discrimination when you have guidelines, rules or (even worse) laws that state job positions must be held for applicants of a certain race, ethnicity, sex or gender?

Hiring the POC and womman in this case would be discrimination? When? Where? Why?
It's just discrimination when non cis white man are employed?
Because it's possible to conclude that from your wording here.

No. It's when you have, AS A RULE, that one or more positions are to go to Insert Race/Gender here.

RikuoAmero:

No. It's when you have, AS A RULE, that one or more positions are to go to Insert Race/Gender here.

Why?

Did you ever stop to think that maybe the reason so many corporations want to improve workplace diversity is because their traditional hiring pools in terms of white, male cis people is not as beneficial to them? I find it funny that so far all the "concerned", moral high horse types convinced this is somehow discrimination seem to not argue on the case of all those underpaid women at Google...

I consider how much someone is statistically gonna want to charge on their labour as pretty important in terms of deciding their employment...

Hypothetically speaking here. What if you had entire groups of people, readily accessible labour ... and the overwhelming likelihood of going to be paid 11-25% less the pay cheque (at conservative estimates at that) despite equivalency of qualifications and often better work ethic? Would that influence your decision? The lower likelihood of those employees making demands for promotions or increased pay, or spitting the dummy on workloads? Would that influence your decision?

Is it still unlawful discrimination for companies to seek what they will think will be the most exploitable labour on the market that won't start running their mouth and be an embarassment to the company? Careful there ... it's almost as if you're advocating for trade unionism, collective bargaining and hard coded legislation to fight against broad workplace discrimination and to improve worker rights ...

Or is this going to be another case of typical conservative hypocrisy?

If you're not willing to allow a company to make financial decisions as a basis of their corporate structure ... well, don't complain when they default to whoever they think will make them the most money. Kind of the whole point, is it not?

After all, you have stories like Oracle paying their white, male workers ridiculous salaries in comparison to women of the same job title. And this gap is particularly observed in terms of LGBTQ workers, African, Asian and South American talent, etc. And yet their hiring rates for these underpaid groups seem to be going up (and remaining chronically underpaid)... could it be that other groups of peopleare willing to work for less despite equivalence of their job title or their responsibilities?

No... clearly it's a conspiracy of ... 'affirmative action'? I guess? Couldn't possibly be merely about money.

Whatever happened to that; "No one owes you a job--pull yourself up by your bootstraps..." mentality you guys tend to spew off about?

Apparently someone saying they'll do the job for much less than white, male workers will do a job for is somehow totally not an aspect of free market capitalism. Rational use of resources and productivity incentive met by opportunity costs for individuals? Pffh, get the fuck out of here Austrian School of economic theory!

Totally not applicable ... clearly this is a problem with [insert reactionary right wing buzzword here].

Addendum_Forthcoming:

RikuoAmero:

No. It's when you have, AS A RULE, that one or more positions are to go to Insert Race/Gender here.

Why?

Did you ever stop to think that maybe the reason so many corporations want to improve workplace diversity is because their traditional hiring pools in terms of white, male cis people is not as beneficial to them? I find it funny that so far all the "concerned", moral high horse types convinced this is somehow discrimination seem to not argue on the case of all those underpaid women at Google...

The rule exists, and the rule is racist and sexist. The reasoning behind it doesn't matter. It's racist and sexist.

The rule should be "Hire the best person for the job" and that's all you need. At the moment it's "Hire the best non-white/asian male." and it's considered progressive. If it were to be flipped on its head "Only hire white/asian males" it'd be a complete shit show.

"Your skills and experience are a perfect fit for the job but we're full up on white/asian men."

It's not racist or sexist apparently, it's also acceptable - no, "progressive".

Take note: I am not saying that a white/asian man will always do the job better. But in the cases where they would they are being discriminated against for being white/asian men. If that isn't racist then it's not racist to never hire black people because you can't guarantee the black person who is applying will always be the better fit than the non-black person competing against them.

Abomination:
The rule exists, and the rule is racist and sexist. The reasoning behind it doesn't matter. It's racist and sexist.

Ah, so intent and theoretical coherence doesn't matter, only the emotional effect on the victimized party. Interesting.

Are you saying that any form of legal or procedural distinction made based on race or gender must, by definition, be racist or sexist? I mean, that would have some pretty far reaching consenquences. Policing, immigration, military service.. remember, the reasoning behind it doesn't matter.

Abomination:
The rule should be "Hire the best person for the job" and that's all you need. At the moment it's "Hire the best non-white/asian male." and it's considered progressive.

So, why would being the best person for the job correlate extremely closely (if not require) being white or asian and/or being male?

I mean, that's what you're suggesting right. It's that we should "hire the best person for the job" even if it means we only hire white and asian males.

Something's going on there, isn't there, something you're not talking about. If we set out to hire the best person for the job, we magically only hire certain types of people. I wonder what kind of hardcore magical wizard shit could possibly be causing that. Like, let's have a think..

Well, to start, who decides who is the "best person for the job?" I mean, that's not an easy question is it. Obviously, you want someone with good qualifications, but for competitive careers at companies like Google everyone has good qualifications. To a certain extent, you can use aptitude tests to delve deeper into someone's strengths and weaknesses, but even then it's a pretty shallow look at a person. Ultimately, it's going to come down to the impression of whoever is conducting the interview. There will be criteria like "is this person a good fit", "will they work well with the team we have" which ultimately come down to the subjective impressions of the interviewer.

So why might interviewers tend to think that white/asian male candidates might be a "good fit" with their existing workforce?

Oh.. right.. because google's existing tech workforce are 82 percent male, and 94 percent white/asian. Wow, it's almost magical, isn't it?

So many white/asian men not getting the tech jobs they deserve.. How can those 18 percent of women and 6 percent of non-whites/asians possibly sleep at night knowing they stole a job which rightfully belonged to a white or asian man.

I like that people pretend that corporate hiring practices approach some approximation of meritocracy. Oh, but for those diversity guidelines!

evilthecat:

Abomination:
The rule exists, and the rule is racist and sexist. The reasoning behind it doesn't matter. It's racist and sexist.

Ah, so intent and theoretical coherence doesn't matter, only the emotional effect on the victimized party. Interesting.

Are you saying that any form of legal or procedural distinction made based on race or gender must, by definition, be racist or sexist? I mean, that would have some pretty far reaching consenquences. Policing, immigration, military service.. remember, the reasoning behind it doesn't matter.

Yes?..

If it's sexist it's sexist. Sort'a tautology there, I realize, but the intent doesn't mean diddly squat. It's sexist and certainly racist.

Abomination:
The rule should be "Hire the best person for the job" and that's all you need. At the moment it's "Hire the best non-white/asian male." and it's considered progressive.

So, why would being the best person for the job correlate extremely closely (if not require) being white or asian and/or being male?

I mean, that's what you're suggesting right. It's that we should "hire the best person for the job" even if it means we only hire white and asian males.

Something's going on there, isn't there, something you're not talking about. If we set out to hire the best person for the job, we magically only hire certain types of people. I wonder what kind of hardcore magical wizard shit could possibly be causing that. Like, let's have a think..

Well, to start, who decides who is the "best person for the job?" I mean, that's not an easy question is it. Obviously, you want someone with good qualifications, but for competitive careers at companies like Google everyone has good qualifications. To a certain extent, you can use aptitude tests to delve deeper into someone's strengths and weaknesses, but even then it's a pretty shallow look at a person. Ultimately, it's going to come down to the impression of whoever is conducting the interview. There will be criteria like "is this person a good fit", "will they work well with the team we have" which ultimately come down to the subjective impressions of the interviewer.

So why might interviewers tend to think that white/asian male candidates might be a "good fit" with their existing workforce?

Oh.. right.. because google's existing tech workforce are 82 percent male, and 94 percent white/asian. Wow, it's almost magical, isn't it?

So many white/asian men not getting the tech jobs they deserve.. How can those 18 percent of women and 6 percent of non-whites/asians possibly sleep at night knowing they stole a job which rightfully belonged to a white or asian man.

If this "magical" scenario happens, as you so painted it, then it's the HR department or recruiter that's to blame and most likely has a racist/sexist streak to them. One would think a progressive company like Google would be able to monitor the hiring practices of its HR or middle management.

Your glib tone does you no credit either. What you are proposing is straight up, 100% racial or sexual discrimination and your attitude is simply to play the world's smallest violin. If the races and sexes were flipped my stance would remain the same.

There is fault here, it's not with the applicants (white, Asian, black, Indian, male, female, doesn't matter) it's with the HR staff. The HR staff need to be brought to heel, not a company wide racial quota met.

What's more, you're saying the hiring staff are making decisions based on how they perceive white/Asian males to act around non-white/Asian males. If anyone's being racist it's the hiring staff and they clearly need to be given a dressing down.

They are turning down applicants based on their race/sex combination. It doesn't matter how you justify that, it's racist and sexist. If they're prepared to have racist and sexist hiring practices - more power to them, but call it what it is. Racist and sexist.

Seanchaidh:
I like that people pretend that corporate hiring practices approach some approximation of meritocracy. Oh, but for those diversity guidelines!

And those non-meritocracy reasons are fine, as they're 99% based on WHO you know or how big your breasts are, not based on what you skin colour is.

The latter scenario is a protected right. The former? Not so much.

Abomination:
Yes?..

If it's sexist it's sexist. Sort'a tautology there, I realize, but the intent doesn't mean diddly squat. It's sexist and certainly racist.

Quick question: why do you think sexism and racism are bad?

Seanchaidh:

Abomination:
Yes?..

If it's sexist it's sexist. Sort'a tautology there, I realize, but the intent doesn't mean diddly squat. It's sexist and certainly racist.

Quick question: why do you think sexism and racism are bad?

Because all people should be judged on the merit of their character and not on superficial things such as the colour of their skin, or the type of genitalia they do or do not possess.

Abomination:

Seanchaidh:

Abomination:
Yes?..

If it's sexist it's sexist. Sort'a tautology there, I realize, but the intent doesn't mean diddly squat. It's sexist and certainly racist.

Quick question: why do you think sexism and racism are bad?

Because all people should be judged on the merit of their character and not on superficial things such as the colour of their skin, or the type of genitalia they do or do not possess.

And why do you think that?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here